Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:48:21 GMT
Message-ID: <Vy2Fh.1156725$R63.738324@pd7urf1no>

mAsterdam wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>

>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>
>>> Does this (unicode 2261)
>>> come through: ≡  or does it look like gibberish?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's the one. Comes through just fine. (It's always
>> a shock when my browser renders anything more challenging
>> than ASCII.)

>
>
> Brace yourself before you scroll down :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Playing a little with Unicode:
>
> Mp (Marshall/paul) referential integrity =def=
> forall R(a): exists S(b): a = b
>
> becomes
>
> R(a) references S(b) ≡
> ∀R(a): ∃S(b)| a=b
>
> or
>
> (using レ = katakana re for references)
>
> R(a) レ S(b) ≡
> ∀R(a): ∃S(b)| a=b
>
> Classic referential integrity (no need, says paul c)
>
> (ル = ru for references unique)
>
> R(a) ル S(b) ≡
> ∀R(a): ∃!S(b)| a=b
>
>

Held my breath as I scrolled down. Congrats. Maybe some old-timers and   all the levelers will object, but I'm all in favour of anything that encourages precision here, at least if I can figure out get the unused letters on my keyboard to echo them.

Once heard a guy say what was wrong with Linux - 1) fonts, 2) fonts, 3) fonts.

p Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 16:48:21 CST